Speaking of Winning, Does the Materialists’ Retreat to the Lunacy of the Multiverse Mean ID is Winning?

_{Barry Arrington

February 23, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis [i.e., the multiverse hypothesis] is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis.”

William Lane Craig

Comments

There is no such thing as "science" if all conceivable arrangements of laws and all possibilities are all occurring infinitely. This means that anything and everything are all simultaneously true and in existence. Then there's no science anymore, just postmodernism taken to its most extreme end. Any scientist that takes the multiverse theory seriously should clear out his desk, pack up, and go home. They'd have to admit they have no job.StuartHarris_{February 24, 2012
February
02
Feb
24
24
2012
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Bruce David *12. I'm always bemused to see a subject like the crop circle mystery brought up.. However you assume what you need to prove. Let's say for argument's sake, there are some crop circles (technically speaking agriglyphs) that are not mechanically man-made (obviously we all agree that plenty of them are physically made by people, the hoaxers/artists), or at least it couldn't be ruled out that some of them are not *mechanically* man-made, why just leap and assume it must then be an alien race? That's very much a culture bound idea, that is a notion heavily influenced by contemporary culture (the popularity of science fiction, the space race etc). It's the same with ufology. Let's say for argument's sake that UFOs are a genuine mystery or phenomenon (and that may well be the case), that doesn't mean they are extra-terrestrial spacecraft. That's just one hypothesis, and frankly it is very much a culture driven one (ie a sociological one). This is well-recognized by scholars and scientists who have studied all this and have not been turned off by the 'giggle' ridicule factor. Unfortunately this has not trickled down to the general public and even much of the scientific and academic community. For the record there are other hypotheses re ufology and crop circles. Let's ignore the man-made argument for ALL of the crop circles (for argument's sake). Other hypotheses are the collective unconscious, an earth consciousness (a way more radical Gaia hypothesis than the one Lovelock has in mind!), a combination of the two. Maybe look closer to home than aliens? Of course all this is very way-out, and smacks of New-Age woowoo. So IDists and Creationists would guffaw at that (one assumes, at least for the most part), as would Darwinians as a matter of course. However I do mention them simply because they are out there (in more ways than one) and it behooves us to acknowledge them, whether we take them seriously or not. They are certainly no more way out than 'aliens are making 'em'. It is worth letting UD readers know that the crop circles that appear every year (predominantly in the UK of course in the old Wessex counties of Hampshire and Wiltshire, new season begins in May or thereabouts) are INDISPUTABLY the best art that is being made anywhere. Nothing else can begin to compete with it. Their sheer scale is incredible. Many of them hundreds of feet across, even hundreds of meters across! They have incorporated animal designs (dolphins, insects, huge bird designs), fractals, religious iconography from numerous traditions around the world, alchemical symbolism, astronomical and astrological motifs, and staggeringly complex multilayered geometrical patterns, 3 D mathematical cubes and more! Just check out all the videos of them on youtube and elsewhere. It will take your breath away and if it doesn't, check your pulse for a sign of life. It's also worth checking a lot of the photos with people moving around in them because only then will you appreciate how massive many of them actually are (and yes farmers tend to get irate about it!). In fact if you don't know, you will simply be shocked. Human artists or not, this stuff beats any other art out there, especially when you take into account the multidisciplinary aspect to it all. It's not even a contest. I agree with arch-skeptic and Darwinian Steve Novella that crop circles are soooo amazing. And it doesn't say much for our so-called culture that you aren't hearing anything much about it. I don't mean by that the commercial stuff done re crop circles (for ads and music promos and the like). It's just basically ignored *as a whole*, because our culture is anti-aesthetic. It is not just dumbed down, it is trivial beyond words and plain ugly. Our so-called culture that is. Personally I find many of the New-Age types who clutter around this subject a little irritating, but at least they are interested in it and appreciate its beauty.zephyr_{February 24, 2012
February
02
Feb
24
24
2012
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

tjguy:
Believers and materialists have the same facts. Ie “We are alone in the universe.”
This is no more a "fact" than Darwinism is. There are several billion galaxies, each containing on average a trillion stars. We can't possibly know whether or no life has arisen or was created in other locations in that vastness. And in fact, the existence of crop circles, along with the fact that they could not have been produced by any known human technology, is some pretty strong evidence that not only are we not alone, but that alien beings have been communicating with us for decades.Bruce David_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Mtg, Agreed. Believers and materialists have the same facts. Ie "We are alone in the universe." But we interpret these facts according to our worldview. Dawkins has to be right if his worldview is right. But what this unexpected finding should do, is not cause him to throw out reason and believe in impossible odds, but rather question his worldview which he just accepts by faith. Design, exquisite mind-boggling design, is everywhere. Dawkins knows this very well, but still refuses to accept the obvious implications of it. He would prefer to believe in miracles. So you see, it is not just Christians who believe in miracles.tjguy_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Jon Garvey He (Prof Dawkins) said that though he believes there may be billions of inhabited planets, if it turns out we’re alone, it will show that life arose by an immensely lucky chance just once. If the odds that life throughout the universe must be abundant just because of the immense number of planets, then one must also accept the virtually impossible odds that a ‘natural’ universe could exist that would be so precisely fine-tuned as to be able to support that life. It's no wonder Mr. Dawkins and others are glued to the multiverse theory. Even with a complete lack of evidence, they feel genuinely secure in their own, self-gratifying belief.mtg_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Ever since I first heard of it, Everett's "many worlds" interpretation of QM struck me as a metaphysical absurdity. In a mathematical sense, if the wave function is continuous, then its not really a "many" worlds interpretation, it's "infinity to the power of infinity" worlds, where, of course, anything that can possibly happen certainly will. Occam must be spinning in his grave. All this apparently allows the materialist to deny the centrality of mind and purpose in the fundamental operation of the universe. However, if you look closely at Everett's model, the way that worlds "split" off from one another is based on a measurement. And the whole problem with measurement in QM is the implication that it depends on mind, consciousness and purpose. So we've circled all the way back round via an infinity of worlds to the point where we started! CheersCLAVDIVS_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

I'm currently reading a book that is written by two authors, one a New Age-type spiritualist and the other a physicist. While the spiritually-minded author (I believe it's Deepak Chopra) doesn't allude too much to the multiverse theory, the physicist (whose name escapes me) does. He makes a statement that is as much a declaration of faith as is Genesis 1:1. The universe(s) came into existence and matter spread throughout billions and trillions of galaxies and stars and, in roughly 13.4 billion years' time, Leonardo da Vinci existed. In other words, the works of da Vinci are nothing but a happy accident.Barb_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

"God scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts," but who could possibly have imagined God would go to such an extreme length as to have them make 2 + 2 = 'anything over a brazillion, but less that 1', according to the caprice of the mulitiverse module!!! They will surely be a laughing stock to future generations "Daddy, what did you do in the culture wars?" And an object lesson in the need for humility - a proper understanding of the lowly, but precious status of empirical science in human affairs, and above all in the man's quest for knowledge and understanding on this side of eternity. Mike, I think calling it, 'natural human intuition' makes it sound far too arcane. Not to see design in a world of such of mind-blowing designs all around us, obvious to non-academic people at least as clearly, frankly defies belief, according to every normal canon of perception. it is beyond outrageous. It is mad beyond all bounds. There is not a country in the world where the languages of its inhabitants are apt to describe such intricately designless designs; such beautiful order, produced with relentlessly propitious regularity by random coincidences created and driven by who knows what forces of chaos. How very strange.Axel_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

"God scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts," but who could have possibly have imagined He would go to such an extreme length as to have them make 2 + 2 = anything over a brazillion, but less that 1 according to the whim of the mulitiverse module!!! They will surely be a laughing stock to future generations "Daddy, what did you do in the culture wars?" And an object lesson in the need for humility - a proper understanding of the lowly, but precious status of empirical science in human affairs, and above all in the man's quest for knowledge and understanding on this side if eternity.Axel_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Probability arguments may be denied by naturalists, but even so Prof Dawkins in debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury today felt it necessary to defuse the probability arguments on the origin of life somewhat. He said that though he believes there may be billions of inhabited planets, if it turns out we're alone, it will show that life arose by an immensely lucky chance just once. Analogously he invoked the multiverse to explain that other immensely lucky chance of fine tuning. But if OOL were that improbable, it would be an admission that Demsbki's calculation is broadly on the mark. And that would make life well beyond the probability bounds of the Universe. And in that case most multiverse hypotheses would not help at all, because each Universe is a closed system, with life vanishingly unlikely in each.Jon Garvey_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: That video is good for content, but it's too bad about the person (the moderator?) who forgot to turn off his mike who makes comments and laughs through it all. Not Dr. Gordon's fault.SCheesman_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

I know I've listed this video before, but Dr. Gordon simply does the best job I've seen thus far, in a short video, of dismantling the multiverse argument:
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon http://vimeo.com/34468027
bornagain77_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

ID wins by default when the facts are known, because the intution of most people favor an ID explanation. Just give people the facts about the fine tuned universe and the marvelous machine-like operations of the inside of cells and the chips fall toward ID most of the time. Atheists can come up with all kinds of ridiculous explanations for the things we see, but they will never overcome human nature. Their arguments are rarely strong enough to overcome natural human intuition.mike1962_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

It's odd that while on the one hand they deny the probability argument amounts to anything, on the other they feel compelled to bring on board an infinite amount of chance to reply to that argument.William J Murray_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply